Prohibition pitfalls

Wrong forms, silent outcomes, LDC-E diagnostics, typical formalizer mistakes, and how to detect them.

OverviewBoundariesCorpus formsPitfalls

1. Duplicating a prohibition with a paired duty

An established action fact inside the window gives VIOLATED of the prohibition itself — a paired duty next to it gives a second VIOLATED for the same breach, and positions carries two breaches instead of one. New packages do not introduce pairs.

2. A norm boundary in the goal window

A norm in force since March 1 is written effective [@2026-03-01, infinity); on the rule; the goal window is the performance deadline. At legal_time outside effective there is no position at all; at legal_time outside window there is one — PENDING before and UNDETERMINED/EXPIRED after. Different answers: “no norm yet” and “the deadline has not started”. Putting the enactment date into window gets PENDING where there should be no position.

3. A quiet window is not compliance

After the window with no monitoring certificate, no closure policy over the whole window, and no adjudication — UNDETERMINED, not SATISFIED. Absence of proof of performance is not compliance — mirroring the achievement rule (absence of proof of non-performance is not a breach). A quiet error: a test with expect position(X, SATISFIED) after the window fails, and the failure reads as an engine defect.

4. Tautological goal

A condition repeating the rule premise (condition contract_signed(s, c) with when contract_signed(s, c)) is established when the position is created — always SATISFIED, the duty requires nothing. The form is not silent: LDC-E1371 (warning) names the goal, the condition, and the rule. A composite condition is checked leaf by leaf; forbearance is not part of the form — a prohibition’s subject is an action, not a condition.

5. Liberty with no priority is conflict, not victory

Forbearance and liberty over the same action for one subject with overlapping windows and no priority give UNRESOLVED_NORMATIVE_CONFLICT, and both positions stand. Expecting “permission defeats prohibition” by itself mistakes the direction: priority wins (DEFEATED for the loser), not modality. The weak-permission query and the conflict rule read the same prohibition (see the liberty page).

6. A window boundary is a value, not a name

A bare name as a boundary (window [moment, infinity)) is rejection LDC-E2115; a term-built window with no deadline policy is MISSING_POLICY. Boundaries are literals, rule variables, infinity/-infinity, or terms with a policy.

7. Incomplete prohibition — LDC-E1305

A prohibition without an addressee, without an action, or without a window is rejection LDC-E1305 for each missing field. Detection: law engine check lists every missing field — read the whole list, not the first item.